Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pia Wurtzbach

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nakon 04:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Wurtzbach[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. One source has been added, so it can't be speedied as a non-referenced BLP. Should be an uncontroversial delete, given that this person has not even held a national title (being runner-up isn't good enough), but given the fact that there are ongoing issues with beauty pageant related articles, especially Phillippines related ones, I felt the AFD should be dignified with at least a discussion. Mabalu (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think that Winmelgarcia is necessarily linked to the whole epic Mrdhimas sockpuppet/meatpuppet situation, but unfortunately anyone who actively edits in the same topic areas (particularly move-warring on one of Mrdhimas's favourite pages), is bound to be viewed with suspicion. Mabalu (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked for other sources and couldn't find anything except articles about her being a runner-up last year and planning to compete this year. Not enough to show notability. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I tried to clean up and source the article. The subject primarily gets attention as a perennial contestant in a beauty pageant. However, a HighBeam search shows coverage from The Manila Bulletin as a former ABS CBN teen actress (stage name Pia Romero). So far, she comes up short on both WP:ENT and WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination until such time that sufficient sourcing is available to substantiate a biography. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject appears to meet the GNG as she has quite a bit of press coverage in the Phillipeans (not all in English, but that is not an issue): [1] --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what is this coverage exactly? Is it related solely to her participating in the pageant and failing to place? That is not normally considered sufficient for notability. If all she is notable for is failing to win beauty pageants, how does that make her notable? (Of course if the coverage is also related to her acting career, then that would help.) Mabalu (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy based reason for excluding coverage of failed pageant entries. That is your personal opinion only. Our notability guidelines say coverage=notability, not accomplishments=notability. And she was first runner-up, so its not like she was just some random contestant. That said, she also writes regularly for the Inquirer, e.g. [2].

The discussions about American beauty pageant contestants are mostly headed toward keep. Wurtzbach has more coverage than almost all of them. It sure feels like systematic bias is at play here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Not sure what you implied with that closing statement, but I'm sure it wasn't nice. As far as I can tell we've never considered runner-ups notable unless they have other reasons to be notable - any contestant will get "coverage" simply by being mentioned in coverage of these shows, but it's hardly significant coverage. By this reasoning I think you're suggesting that anybody who gets regularly mentioned in a national newspaper's society column as being seen at parties or social events would be considered Wikipedia-article-worthy? Blimey, by that reasoning, /I/ would deserve a Wikipedia article of my own, because I've had ongoing multiple mentions in newspapers/magazines/other media since the 1980s, but I'm pretty sure that the fact no straight man would want to see me in a bikini makes me non-notable. ;) Mabalu (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, nothing was implied other than exactly what the term means, see WP:Systematic bias. We've never ever considered anyone not notable based on insufficient accomplishments. That isn't how notability works on Wikipedia; it is not a synonym for "important". The definition of notability is "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". There is nothing in the guideline about judging the reason for said coverage. Finally, you are confusing "mentioned" with "has significant coverage". When someone is mentioned in an article about another subject, that doesn't count for notability. When the article is about them, they do. Here, if Wurtzbach was merely mentioned in articles about the pageant then you'd be current that they confer no notability. However, what we actually have is many article about her that mention the pageant. That does convey notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has received passing mention in reliable sources (such as this one) but none which I would considered providing in-depth or significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. Subject has not won any notable pageants therefore fails WP:ANYBIO & does not have a document cult following or meet other criteria set forth in WP:ENTERTAINER. Therefore, it maybe too soon for the subject to be considered notable. That being said I would not be opposed to this article being incubated in case the subject receives more reliable sources coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ThaddeusB, "meet the GNG as she has quite a bit of press coverage in the Phillipeans" WordSeventeen (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Received quite some coverage, but not too in-depth coverage. Most of the coverage only expend a couple sentences on the pageant. Esquivalience ^t 02:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than just a beauty pageant contestant, a working actress (since age 11 -- supporting her family) and model, gets substantive write-ups in Philippine media such as here and here and here and here and here and here. Meets the WP:GNG. Plus article upgraded (cruft removed) as per WP:HEYMANN.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the linked sources are about the pageants which the subject has been involved in and not in-depth coverage of the subject as the primary subject of the sources provided.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wurtzbach is the subject of several articles, with her name mentioned in the headline, the article discussing her (of course in the context of the pageant), with her photo prominent, which meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title mention does not equal in-depth or significant coverage. A paragraph does not in-depth or significant coverage make.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.